Democracy in the Arab World

Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis and their differing views on the chances for democracy in the Middle East.

"The fox knows many little things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing," goes the ancient Greek epigram made famous by Sir Isaiah Berlin. Berlin used the distinction to categorize writers – Tolstoy, in his view, was a fox who aspired to be a hedgehog – but it can be applied to many disciplines.

Neither the hedgehog nor the fox is always right or always wrong. Those who insist on discovering 57 degrees of Islamists, for instance, are foxes run amok. They overlook the crucial element that unifies all Islamists: the rejection of the legitimacy of any legal system besides Sharia. And those who insist that all men share the same basic cost-benefit analysis, and that a nuclear Iran could be deterred as was the USSR, are dangerous hedgehogs, whose error could lead to a nuclear cataclysm.

Natan Sharansky is a hedgehog. The proposition that all men seek to be free underlies all his writings. As a corollary, he divides political systems between fear societies, in which people cannot express their true opinions, and free societies, in which anyone can stand in the market square and shout, "Down with the ruler."

Sharansky assumes, without question, that all cultures are compatible with democracy.

Sharansky's major works all start from his experience as a Soviet refusenik, and extrapolate from that experience to all men at all times. He writes neither as a historian nor as political scientist. The processes by which democracy develops and the circumstances that foster that development are not central to his work. And he assumes, without question, that all cultures are compatible with democracy. He points to those who argued that the Japanese culture was not well-suited to democracy, as if it were a complete refutation to contemporary skeptics.

Nevertheless, he has many trenchant insights on democracy. One example: Tyrannies are inevitably bellicose compared to democracies because the former require external enemies to distract the populace from their lack of freedom. He has forcefully argued that dictatorships are inherently unstable because they cannot command the allegiance of their citizens, and chides the world's democracies for the refusal to exploit that vulnerability. Every Soviet political prisoner, he writes, sensed that the USSR was doomed from the moment President Reagan labeled it an "evil empire" and confronted it. And he describes President Obama's failure to support Iranian protesters in 2009 as one of the "biggest betrayals of people's freedoms in modern history."

Sharansky's views have been enormously influential. President George W. Bush pronounced his 2005 book The Case for Democracy "a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy." Even before that, Bush's June 24 2003 Rose Garden speech on the Middle East channeled a speech delivered by Sharansky four days earlier at the American Enterprise Institute World Forum in Beaver Creek, Colorado. Bush had been widely expected to declare American support for a Palestinian state. Instead he declared his support for Palestinian democracy – something far different.

Certainly, America's current position would be far better had President Bush not abandoned the democracy initiative, urged upon him by Sharansky. The few democratic reformers in Egypt might have built a sufficient following to compete with the Muslim Brotherhood, and the United States would not find itself so closely identified with the region's autocrats.

And Sharansky was prescient in recognizing the futility of any peace agreement signed by a Palestinian strongman that lacks popular support: Because of the now evident instability of dictatorships, the agreement would last no longer than the strongman who signed it. (Palestinian "leaders" have recognized how tenuous would be their rule if they moved ahead of the consensus of the Palestinian street, even if Western politicians remain oblivious.)

Not surprisingly, Sharansky views recent events in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East as an expression of the universal desire of all men to be free. And he is generally optimistic about the potential for a democratic Egypt to emerge that will not need Israel as an external enemy, particularly if America uses its economic leverage wisely.

Not on the Near Horizon

Bernard Lewis, the nonagenarian dean of historians of Islam, plays the fox to Sharansky's hedgehog. (The two men were interviewed two weeks apart by Jerusalem Post editor David Horowitz.) Lewis views the unfolding events through the prism of his vast knowledge of the particulars of Islamic culture and society. That knowledge leaves him doubtful that representative democracy is on the near horizon.

Lewis notes that the word "freedom" as a political virtue does not exist in Arabic.

Whereas Sharansky instinctively understands the demonstrations in Egypt as the expression of a desire for freedom, Lewis is far less certain as to the demonstrator's goals. The riots in Tunisia, for instance, began over bread prices. And the sharp rise of wheat prices in impoverished Egypt played a major role in causing the cauldron of social tension to boil over.

True, most people do not like being told what to do or think, especially on pain of death. But both individuals and cultures differ greatly over the place of political freedom on their hierarchy of values. Many of world's citizens, for instance, would gladly opt for a full stomach over representative democracy.

Lewis notes that the word "freedom" as a political virtue does not exist in Arabic; rather "free" refers exclusively to one's legal status in contradistinction to being a slave. In the same vein, Harold Rhode, a former Defense Department advisor on Middle Eastern and Islamic affairs and a Lewis protégé, recently pointed out to a group of visiting European parliamentarians that Arabic has no word for personal responsibility, only for being held accountable.

Traditional Muslim societies emphasize the collective identity and loyalty to the tribe or umma over individual identity, Rhode argued. For Westerners that a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed may seem to be the natural state of affairs. But that idea is largely foreign to the Arab world. In traditional Arab societies, rulers treat the state as their private property. Saudi Arabia, for instance, derives its name from the ruling House of Saud.

Based on his intimate knowledge of Islamic history, Lewis would base the move towards Arab democracy on pre-existing models, such as consultative councils between rulers and representatives of independent centers of power, with the circle of those consulted gradually expanding.

The other model for developing democracy in a traditional Muslim society is that of an enlightened despot serving as the midwife. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the leader of a group of young army officers who deposed the sultan and the founder of the modern Turkish state, is the outstanding example. He was above all an educational reformer, who sought to teach individuals how to make their own informed decisions. But part of that process was the forced secularization, and de-Islamization, of the public square. As the educational reforms spread, the realm of civilian control expanded as well.

Despite their opposite starting points, Sharansky and Lewis share certain affinities. (Lewis proposed that Sharansky's 2003 speech to the AEI World Policy Forum be published and widely distributed.) Both strongly oppose the rush to early elections in Egypt. Sharansky constantly warns against the conflation of democracy with elections, and emphasizes the crucial importance of an independent judiciary, the rule of law, tolerance for diverse views, and the commitment to regular elections, at fairly short intervals, as a value in itself, not just a means of seizing power.

Yet their take on current events in the Middle East differs greatly. Sharansky reads those events through the hedgehog perspective of the universal human aspiration for freedom. Lewis, however, reminds us that justice, not individual liberty, is the traditional Muslim measure of good government. Were the Arab states now being roiled by popular revolts not corrupt kleptocracies, ill-equipped to meeting the basic needs of their citizens, he argues, they would not have experienced the current wave of political unrest.

Time will tell whether the hedgehog or the fox has shown the clearer grasp.

Visitor Comments: 8

(8)
Wassim,
April 3, 2011 2:12 AM

What's holding back "Liberal Islam" in the *Middle East*?

It's normal for any idea to be further refined over time. It's a by product of delving into the idea in the first place. Religion is no different. One's understanding should progress, and usually does, so inevitably there will be differences between conservative and liberal factions. Many religions have had some sort of reform movement, but I'm not sure if Islam has. It seems that Liberal Islam is being intentionally stifled, otherwise I'd expect it to be more prevalent throughout the Arab world. I don't believe Arabs are predisposed or biased towards some of the harsher points of conservative Islam. I think there is some political interference being channeled through religious outlets. So I think, Islam reform is at the heart of the matter. First of all, if the international community is going to accept that Islam is a religion that regularly influences foreign policy decisions of many countries, then those countries should demand that the Islamic "leadership" have formal representation and a place in the United Nations. Why is it so absurd that an Ayatollah or Imam or a delegation of such people, who influence the thoughts and actions of millions of others, not be given proper recognition and be held accountable for their leadership. Separation of church and state on the international stage is still centuries away at the rate we're going. Therefore, "church" is still interfering with "state". Whether you squash Islamist movements by force or with religious diplomacy, that will be in effect "Islam reform". Peace.

(7)
Wassim,
April 1, 2011 3:17 AM

Pathways to peace

I think there are many paths to peace... Religion, Politics, Language, Economics. There's doesn't need to be one solution. The more Arabs and Muslims can speak English the better. The more trade the better. The more democratic institutions (not necessarily the government itself) the better. The more interfaith dialogue the better. The last angle interests me the most. Most people seem to put Islam reform in the too-hard basket, and very few even dare to suggest it. I recognise that many religions have "problematic texts", but that's not a problem if there is a tradition of analysis that mitigates the dangers of literal interpritation. Also, every human being should be encouraged to filter the text against their own set of values. I think it's the height of Godliness to refuse a commandment to murder or hate, whereas obeying such a commandment renders a human into a donkey. Once people acknowledge that books are written by human beings, certainly not by angels or God himself, it becomes very easy to simply conclude "that part of the religious text does not apply today". If we must accept a religious text completely as it is then that religion is the problem that will counter any other attempts to achieve harmony and true civilisation. I wish Islam had Rabbis, and a website like aish.com too.

(6)
rae,
March 31, 2011 4:32 AM

destructive force!

How can one rationalise with a demolition ball?

(5)
Donald Mattison,
March 31, 2011 3:44 AM

Excellent Article

From my 20 years of linguistic studies, I would like to say that this article and its analysis is very accurate indeed. It has taken me many years to understand what this timely article says in a few pages. The free and open dialogue of both the language and the cultures are vital to any meaningful outcome--which I devoutly hope is some measure of peace.

(4)
Joanne,
March 31, 2011 2:50 AM

Yes, freedom is not being a slave

Freedom means not being a slave of a tyrant. So many of the young Egyptians are educated and must be aware of the rest of the world. This is the wake up call -- more tyranny or a new (for them) kind of government? A fair judicial system, fair elections, rule of law, and a separation of mosque/church and state. They have the internet. They know what repression is. Freedom is the opposite.

(3)
Bobby5000,
March 30, 2011 4:51 PM

Islam and Christianity

The history of Islam is ignored. From about 1000 to 1492, Jews enjoyed prosperity and relative freedom in Moslem Spain, with that period called the Golden Age.
Places like Moslem Solonica likewise saw prosperity and relative freedom not just decades but centuries.
In 1492, Catholic Spain expelled the Jews. Later Jews would be tortured if they were found worshipping their religion. If we inflict enough pain, torture, and hardship they will understand Jesus' love and compassion the rulers instructed. If they don't confess alone, bring in their families to watch them suffer the new rulers said.
Later Jewish childen, women, and men would be murdered in an amount so large to be called a holocaust. While there are periodic murders and hardships throughout the history of Islam, it was not on the scale and extent of Christianity.
Hitler's regime was not that of a misguided madman; he was one of several candidates on an anti-semitic platform and his Nuremberg laws were largely a return to historic anti-Jewish policies in that Christian country.
No one can or should say they that the horrible things we have seen with the creation of Israel were due to a hated or defective religion called Islam. Instead, bad men people Islam as they did Christianity. The suicide bomber who says Allah is great is no more a representative of Islam than the gas-chamber operator in 1943 who regularly attends church on Sundays telling fellow congregants "Peace be With You," while he calculates more efficient ways of stacking the bodies of those he murdered.
What will happen is anyone's guess. Perhaps some
of the persons may embrace the true nature of Islam, attempt to help people and enjoy the fruits of democracy. There is a danger of radical elements taking power.
However attacks on Islam are neither accurate nor helpful. Israel needs to be secure because Jews have faced persecution and hardship from Moslem and Christian followers alike

(2)
Mike Lampard,
March 29, 2011 8:53 PM

Niether of them have got it!

Democracy in the Middle east is a sham and always will be because of Islam. In order for democracy to work in any socierty people have to feel free .No one under ismal is even permitted to be free because there is the spectre of Sharia law over them all the time. In order toprove their loyalty to the 'club' 9i.e.islam) they will vote with islam and orgainzations like Muslim brotherhood will gain. The fact that poverty caused the riots, etc. is merely a trigger point that now has no relevance. Everyrevolution in histrioyahs given rise to the most despotic tyrranical governemnts that ever existed. Why should this be any different?

(1)
Phyllis,
March 29, 2011 4:08 PM

Perhaps there is something in what each says. It may be that Muslims are not ready for a representative democracy because of their culture and history. 'There may be a few idealists involved who are aware of what a representative democracy would do but most are not and distrust it. The culture of tribalism may be too strong for the majority to embrace representative democracy. Those of us in the west who do not come from the culture of tribalism cannot fathom this form of government. Muslims do not seem to be able to understand our culture. Their expectations are quite different than ours. We will see how this turns out. If there is any step towards democracy it will not include women in the near future. They will continue to be treated as property with no rights.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...